Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lenten_ashes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL, Jon, you guys might be the one denomination they would exclude :rotfl:

All I heard as a protestant is that Luther didn’t do enough - not even close to enough for true reformation.
Interestingly, it was the Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran) reformers who lodged the protest at the 2nd Diet at Speyer in 1529. 🤷

Jon
 
Which Lutheran one?
If other "Protestants " agree with us on the essentials, then agreeing with the Augsburg Confession is a snap. There are few greater essentials than infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the real presence, Confession / Holy Absolution.

Jon
Can’t answer for the protestants, but you can fit a few Anglicans into that.
 
Interestingly, it was the Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran) reformers who lodged the protest at the 2nd Diet at Speyer in 1529. 🤷

Jon
Yeah, pretty ridiculous notion that the ones who started the reformation would not be considered welcome in any sort of unification project. Shows how much things have changed over the past 490 years.
 
I hear protestant apologists claiming you all agree on “essentials”.
Hi Lenten_ashes. Admittedly I mostly haven’t been reading your posts, but perhaps I should because this ^^ seems like something I would say. More specifically, I’m always hearing stuff like "Well, I heard a Catholic apologist say Blank, so that proves that … " :hmmm: Maybe it’s time we turn the tables. :cool:
 
Hi Lenten_ashes. Admittedly I mostly haven’t been reading your posts, but perhaps I should because this ^^ seems like something I would say. More specifically, I’m always hearing stuff like "Well, I heard a Catholic apologist say Blank, so that proves that … " :hmmm: Maybe it’s time we turn the tables. :cool:
It’s just so common that I had to mention it.

Here’s how the talks between Catholic and Protestant apologists go:
Catholic: Does doctrine matter? Because you guys are all reading the same bible and interpreting it differently?
Protestant: Well, we all agree on “essentials”
Catholic: And where are those at?
Protestant: What?
Catholic: Yes, where is the inspired table of “essentials” in the bible that I can examine?
Protestant: (((Quotes several verses like Romans 10:9 and others)))
Catholic: That isn’t a table, you just cherry picked verses and made your own table.
Protestant: Better option than what you guys do with your tradition.
Catholic: How so?
Protestant: Because you cant trust Tradition and it can allow a truck load of heresy through the door so better to avoid it all together. Plus, Jesus spoke against tradition.
Catholic: He didn’t speak against apostolic tradition since he implemented it.
Protestant: you cant prove these beliefs you have especially purgatory and Mary. And you fall back and pull out the tradition card to do it.
Catholic: Jesus gave the RCC the power to loose and bind and infallibility, the RCC can’t be wrong
Protestant:: that was for all Christians.
Catholic: no, it wasn’t
Protestant: Yes it was
Stand still
 
Hi Lenten_ashes. Admittedly I mostly haven’t been reading your posts, but perhaps I should because this ^^ seems like something I would say. More specifically, I’m always hearing stuff like "Well, I heard a Catholic apologist say Blank, so that proves that … " :hmmm: Maybe it’s time we turn the tables. :cool:
I thought some Catholics already had? 😉

Jon
 
I read the entire article:

I wonder how you (or the blogger) and Catholics would answer these questions

Do you agree with the following:
( I would answer yes)

All Scripture is God breathed (pasa graphe theopneustos
Depends on the precise meaning of your terminology:

TO us Catholics “God breathed” sounds VERY much like disctation. So NO!

IF on the other hand you take 2 Tim. 3:16-17 as literal; then YES the Bible is a GOD-INSPIRED work.
Every line of Scripture is infallible and inerrant (Incapable of error. Contains no errors)
It is The Truth ( not a truth, not merely correct)
NO and as a Protestant you don’t either:

The Real Presence testified to by 5 diffferent authors of the bible
Mt. 26:26-28; Mk.14:22-24; LK 22:17-20’ Jn 6:47-57 Paul 1st Cor. 11:23-30

God & His Method for sin forgiveness Jn 20:19-20

One God; one Faith {set of beliefs}, and one chosen people that Jesus termed MY CHURCH Mt 16:18

Then there are the parables

& I could expand the list
Anything statement that disagrees with Scripture, by definition must be an erro
And AGAIN you don’t believe that either: see abover
It is impossible for Scripture to disagree with God
NO, NOT with the MANY translation floating around
It is impossible for God to disagree with Scripture{/QUOTE]
NO! ditto above reason.
God speaking from His Throne; Jesus preaching from the Mount, and ALL God breathed writings carry the same EQUAL authority.
DEFINE “authority”? ???

Obviously not everyone thinks so or there would be only the CC:shrug:
I would answer no to these questions:
Are there any other God breathed writings (graphe theopneustos) not included in the Bible*?
(*that we still have access to)
Are there any other writings that can claim every line is infallible and inerrant ?
Are there any other writings that it is impossible for God to disagree with?
Are there any other writings that carry the EXACT same authority as God speaking from His Throne or Jesus preaching from the Mount?
Blessings,

PJM
 
Depends on the precise meaning of your terminology:

TO us Catholics “God breathed” sounds VERY much like disctation. So NO!

IF on the other hand you take 2 Tim. 3:16-17 as literal; then YES the Bible is a GOD-INSPIRED work.
the Greek is pasa graphe theopneustos
Theo is God
pneustos means breath
It is where we get the word Pneumonia and pneumatic
** so literally**
All Scripture God Breathed
NO and as a Protestant you don’t either:
I absolutely believe that every line is Scripture is is inerrant and infallible.
Inerrant and infallible does NOT mean similes, metaphors and common figures of speech are NOT used.

bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
 
the Greek is pasa graphe theopneustos
Theo is God
pneustos means breath
It is where we get the word Pneumonia and pneumatic
** so literally**
All Scripture God Breathed

I absolutely believe that every line is Scripture is is inerrant and infallible.
Inerrant and infallible does NOT mean similes, metaphors and common figures of speech are NOT used.

bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
I can agree with this, though, “This is my body…” should never be construed and figurative.
Jon
 
Back to the topic… It’s Rome, head of the universal church that held that council in 382AD.
Perhaps it would be time to go tell the Orthodox - they been having larger Bibles for the last 1700 years and I’m sure they’d like to save on printing costs.
 
Perhaps it would be time to go tell the Orthodox - they been having larger Bibles for the last 1700 years and I’m sure they’d like to save on printing costs.
They claim to recognize the first 7 ecumenical councils.Just ask them and they will tell you they do.(i have)

Trullo in 692 AD (Considered ecumenical by EO)) and Council of Nicaea II in 787 AD ***both ***reiterated the binding canons of the Council of Carthage (397). Of course Carthage was reaffirming Hippo in 393 AD and Rome in 382 AD

Schism was 1054 AD

So do the math and you can see they ***aren’t ***really acknowledging those councils if they ignore what was reiterated therein
 
Yes. I do not believe in Sola Scripture. I lean towards the Catholic view.
 
Hi Jon, that’s another interesting theory I have heard. That basically everything changed at some point so it makes better sense to do it this way.

Honestly, though, there doesn’t appear to be anything in the bible indicating that is what is going to happen, though. No directive?

Not a gotcha question or anything here, but if everything is supposed to be in the bible, and that isn’t and it’s a main pillar of your faith, I see a problem with that.
On another note, we may not live in your idea of the “apostolic era” but we have the apostolic lineage of persons responsible for teaching God’s Word without change or manipulation–straight from Christ himself. He handed the keys of authority of The Church to St. Peter. (Matt. 16:13-19) Every Pope in succession since St. Peter holds the keys of authority to The Church. Every Cardinal, Bishop, Priest and Deacon of the Catholic Church can trace their ordination lineage back to the original Apostles. So in a sense, the Apostolic era will never end. The teachings of the Early Church Fathers continue to this day in all of their authenticity–from the oral tradition to the written Word. Feels nice to be a part of the perpetual apostolic era, doesn’t it?
 
the Greek is pasa graphe theopneustos
Theo is God
pneustos means breath
It is where we get the word Pneumonia and pneumatic
** so literally**
All Scripture God Breathed

I absolutely believe that every line is Scripture is is inerrant and infallible.
Inerrant and infallible does NOT mean similes, metaphors and common figures of speech are NOT used.

bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
OK:D

BUT none of which address the ROOT points that I shared about you’re NOT
believing what the bible ACTUALLY and precisely, says’🤷

God Bless you

Patrick
 
They claim to recognize the first 7 ecumenical councils.Just ask them and they will tell you they do.(i have)
Correct - they recognize that local councils are not the same as ecumenical councils.

That’s also why Lutherans have no fixed cannon - Trent was when it was defined for the Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
 
Thank you

Was there a point and time where you did believe in it?

And if so, why do you think that was?
I definitely believed in Dika Scripture at some point. I believe it was because that is what I was taught and I didn’t research on my own. Since researching on my own, I now believe differently.
 
OK:D

BUT none of which address the ROOT points that I shared about you’re NOT
believing what the bible ACTUALLY and precisely, says’🤷

God Bless you

Patrick
yes i do:
I proclaim that every sentence of Scripture is inerrant

I’m sorry to say that you don’t get change the meaning of inerrant to mean 100% literal
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top